|
Well drawn characters should not be artificially limited like this, because real people aren't. Real people are not limited to, say, be equally rated on both looks and personality. It would make our characters two-dimensional.Sure, and there should probably be 85,000 feats to truly be able to make the kind of diverse characters we'd like to. And 175,000 different skills to be able to capture exactly what a character can do.
But the game is a simplification. Why continue to fight against it? Why can't 5 Strength characters just be, you know, not strong?
Remember, the whole motivation to tell people how they can or cannot role-play is ostensibly to promote good role-playing, isn't it?All rules place some limitations on role play, and that is not a bad thing. If there is a skill in place that makes you really good at singing, and you don't take it, it is quite disingenuous to role play a character that is a world-renown singer. It just doesn't add up.
I still don't understand why people don't simply enjoy their low stats and create a character that fairly represents them. You have a lot of flexibility as to where to put your stats, regardless if you roll or point-buy. Why put a low score in a stat, and then complain that you have a low score in that stat?
Be an ugly hero. Or a dumb one. Or a weak one. It's okay, all heroes shouldn't be shining examples of perfection in every aspect.
It's the other way round.
Let's say you're using point-buy. The concept you have is for a charismatic demagogue, as exemplified by Adolf H. What Cha score would you give him? What, 18? But doesn't that make him as good-looking as an underwear model? But....he isn't good-looking!
How can Adolf H-type charisma be an invalid character concept? How can you forbid this concept on the grounds of wanting better role-play?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey we all have our own definition of attractive.
I mean I'm sure someone out there, maybe in this thread even, finds:
"Grisly fetishes and the rags of once fine clothes hang off the corpse-thin frame of this horrifying, sharp-fanged crone."
as the Hotness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey we all have our own definition of attractive.
I mean I'm sure someone out there, maybe in this thread even, finds:
"Grisly fetishes and the rags of once fine clothes hang off the corpse-thin frame of this horrifying, sharp-fanged crone."
as the Hotness.
Hehehe
We've have quite a running gag going on from some of these Paizo writers....
There have been multiple descriptions in these modules of 'exoticly beautiful or statues of beautiful women....
Then we look at the picture. "ummm... she's got hooves! and... ummm.. Fur... or wings... or horns...
I mean... yeah, she's got a large chest... but C'MON!!!!"
Let's say you're using point-buy. The concept you have is for a charismatic demagogue, as exemplified by Adolf H. What Cha score would you give him? What, 18? But doesn't that make him as good-looking as an underwear model? But....he isn't good-looking!
I don't know enough about Adolf to be able to give Pathfinder-equivalent stats to him, but if the dilemma you're having is that you want to know how a character can be persuasive but not attractive, how about a low Charisma character with skill points in Diplomacy and/or Intimidate?
I don't know enough about Adolf to be able to give Pathfinder-equivalent stats to him, but if the dilemma you're having is that you want to know how a character can be persuasive but not attractive, how about a low Charisma character with skill points in Diplomacy and/or Intimidate?Let's say you're using point-buy. The concept you have is for a charismatic demagogue, as exemplified by Adolf H. What Cha score would you give him? What, 18? But doesn't that make him as good-looking as an underwear model? But....he isn't good-looking!
This actually brings this thread full circle. It started as a question of whether putting points in a stats skill had any affect on the stat or some such thing.
Some of the earlier thoughts were that it didn't matter how many points you put in diplomacy... you still had a crappy Charisma and shouldn't act like you had a decent one....
|
|
I don't know enough about Adolf to be able to give Pathfinder-equivalent stats to him, but if the dilemma you're having is that you want to know how a character can be persuasive but not attractive, how about a low Charisma character with skill points in Diplomacy and/or Intimidate?Let's say you're using point-buy. The concept you have is for a charismatic demagogue, as exemplified by Adolf H. What Cha score would you give him? What, 18? But doesn't that make him as good-looking as an underwear model? But....he isn't good-looking!
For a moment I thought you were saying that you didn't know about Adolf H...!!! : )
IIRC, 1st ed AD&D had examples from real life to illustrate each ability. I might be imagining it, but I seem to remember Rasputin as an example of 18 Con and Adolf an example of 18 Cha (to illustrate that the ability is not all about good looks).
I wonder if anyone has the books and can supply a quote...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know enough about Adolf to be able to give Pathfinder-equivalent stats to him, but if the dilemma you're having is that you want to know how a character can be persuasive but not attractive, how about a low Charisma character with skill points in Diplomacy and/or Intimidate?Let's say you're using point-buy. The concept you have is for a charismatic demagogue, as exemplified by Adolf H. What Cha score would you give him? What, 18? But doesn't that make him as good-looking as an underwear model? But....he isn't good-looking!
For a moment I thought you were saying that you didn't know about Adolf H...!!! : )
IIRC, 1st ed AD&D had examples from real life to illustrate each ability. I might be imagining it, but I seem to remember Rasputin as an example of 18 Con and Adolf an example of 18 Cha (to illustrate that the ability is not all about good looks).
I wonder if anyone has the books and can supply a quote...
That would be nice...
One of the things I loved about the Marvel RPG was that EVERY rank was given an example and a description so there really weren't as many debates like this ;)
|
Except that if you keep all subscores of charisma exactly equal all the time, as Tormsskull keeps demanding, then you don't all have your own notion of attractiveness, since everyone has a fixed charisma score!Hey we all have our own definition of attractive.
I mean I'm sure someone out there, maybe in this thread even, finds:
"Grisly fetishes and the rags of once fine clothes hang off the corpse-thin frame of this horrifying, sharp-fanged crone."
as the Hotness.
Maybe I was reading to much into what was posted here.
One of the things I loved about the Marvel RPG was that EVERY rank was given an example and a description so there really weren't as many debates like this ;)
I wish I could have liked your post more than once for that reference :) I used to use that game to model so many different characters from movies and cartoons just for that very reason. While it was still somewhat arbitrary on my part, it did guide you somewhat towards the relative differences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well drawn characters should not be artificially limited like this, because real people aren't. Real people are not limited to, say, be equally rated on both looks and personality. It would make our characters two-dimensional.Sure, and there should probably be 85,000 feats to truly be able to make the kind of diverse characters we'd like to. And 175,000 different skills to be able to capture exactly what a character can do.
But the game is a simplification. Why continue to fight against it? Why can't 5 Strength characters just be, you know, not strong?
Remember, the whole motivation to tell people how they can or cannot role-play is ostensibly to promote good role-playing, isn't it?All rules place some limitations on role play, and that is not a bad thing. If there is a skill in place that makes you really good at singing, and you don't take it, it is quite disingenuous to role play a character that is a world-renown singer. It just doesn't add up.
I still don't understand why people don't simply enjoy their low stats and create a character that fairly represents them. You have a lot of flexibility as to where to put your stats, regardless if you roll or point-buy. Why put a low score in a stat, and then complain that you have a low score in that stat?
Be an ugly hero. Or a dumb one. Or a weak one. It's okay, all heroes shouldn't be shining examples of perfection in every aspect.
It can come down to greed, or envy. They make min max characters that really rock, are really strong in some areas, but they don't want to be weak in other areas (like charisma, like int). They make a bruiser, they don't want to fail every diplomacy check, they make an archer, they don't want to be dumb. The old wanting to have cake and eat it too. Sorry, the cake went to things other than cha and int obviously.
It can come down to greed, or envy. They make min max characters that really rock, are really strong in some areas, but they don't want to be weak in other areas (like charisma, like int). They make a bruiser, they don't want to fail every diplomacy check, they make an archer, they don't want to be dumb. The old wanting to have cake and eat it too. Sorry, the cake went to things other than cha and int obviously.
That seems to be the impression I am getting as well. I'm starting to see why some GM's who use point-buy don't allow dump stats. If you get to the point where you can't play a negative stat without making some kind of an excuse for why its not really a negative, then it makes more sense that you should not be allowed to dump stat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind dump stats. If someone wants to pretend their dump stat, that is all good, the dice will tell and it is going to come up eventually and the truth likely very clear.
I run a lot of combat heavy games, but social skills are always important. If they drop them they will have trouble. If they rely on a face to solve all problems, well that too will only last for so long; and when it comes to their characters making checks, we will see how that goes.
I like to dump stats, try dex and/or wis. Some people will never risk dumping those.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone with Cha as a dump stat pumps up their Diplomacy skill, they can make sure they don't fail every diplomacy.
If "intelligence" is a measure of the ability to learn new things, then a Ranger with an Int 8 [5 skill points per level] is more "intelligent" than a Cleric with an Int 14 [4 skill points per level].
Don't hate the player, hate the system.
|
|
Earlier I PM'd Jaelithe and asked him if he could provide quotes from the 1st ed DMG. I seem to remember that Rasputin was used as an example of 18 Con and Adolf H as an example of 18 Cha (which also illustrated that Cha is not just about good looks).
I'm sure I remember this...or am I going mad?
The fact that you have gone mad has nothing to do with these quotes. ;)
Here you go.
From the DMG, p. 15:
"Constitution: This character ability rating is a general heading under which folk the character's physique, health, resistance, and fitness. An individual who catches cold if exposed to a slight draft has a constitution of 5 or less in all probability. Rasputin had an 18 constitution!
"Charisma: Many persons have the sad misconception that charisma is merely physical attractiveness. This error is obvious to any person who considers the subject with perceptiveness. Charisma is a combination of physical appearance, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism. True charisma becomes evident when one considers such historic examples of Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonoparte (sic), and Adolf Hitler. Obviously, these individuals did not have an 18 score on physical beauty, so it is quite possible to assume that scores over 18 are possible, for any one of the named historical personalities would have had a higher charisma score there can be no question that these individuals were 18's - if they would have had great attractiveness as well as commanding personal magnetism and superb persuasiveness."
(Nice run-on sentence, Garry.)
The above sounds like a good illustration of the convention that allows statistics to represent various sub-categories, which should please you.
Thanks Jaelithe!
|
|
If someone with Cha as a dump stat pumps up their Diplomacy skill, they can make sure they don't fail every diplomacy.
If "intelligence" is a measure of the ability to learn new things, then a Ranger with an Int 8 [5 skill points per level] is more "intelligent" than a Cleric with an Int 14 [4 skill points per level].
Don't hate the player, hate the system.
I'd say they were more learned. Skills dont change what your ability score is, they can make you seem smart because in some areas you have more learned knowledge. Put these example characters into situations where skills dont help. Take 10 on int checks an see who ends up right more often.
Make the example characters the same level and not savants and the cleric will have a score 3 better then the ranger in any skill they both have.
Even then, it's only a difference of 3. Over time, a trend would favor the Cleric, but on any individual roll the natural result on the d20 will impact the outcome much more.
Also, if they're both rolling untrained Knowledge checks, the max possible result is 10, unless you have access to a library.
|
|
Even then, it's only a difference of 3. Over time, a trend would favor the Cleric, but on any individual roll the natural result on the d20 will impact the outcome much more.
Also, if they're both rolling untrained Knowledge checks, the max possible result is 10, unless you have access to a library.
It's not that untrained knowledge skill checks have a maximum result of 10, it's that knowledge skill checks cannot be attempted untrained unless the DC of that check is DC10 or less; the result can be as high as you roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think debating the semantics is truly important, or that it will change the spirit or meaning of my statement?
|
|
Do you think debating the semantics is truly important, or that it will change the spirit or meaning of my statement?
No offence meant. I wouldn't want anyone reading this thread to be accidentally led astray on a rules question by one of our posts. It wasn't a comment on the spirit of your post. : )
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I see the skills as more important than base stat. Knowledge checks NEED skill ranks to even be used.
If the 7 INT character has a rank in knowledge Geography, and the 18 Int guy doesn't... The 7 int will beat the 18 guy EVERYtime it is a DC 10+... just on the basis of 'he gets to roll.'
It all comes down to my opinion of there not really being any RAW INT checks, but the INT dictates how many and how high your skills are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone with Cha as a dump stat pumps up their Diplomacy skill, they can make sure they don't fail every diplomacy.
If "intelligence" is a measure of the ability to learn new things, then a Ranger with an Int 8 [5 skill points per level] is more "intelligent" than a Cleric with an Int 14 [4 skill points per level].
Don't hate the player, hate the system.
Yep, I heartily agree.
This is why I see the skills as more important than base stat. Knowledge checks NEED skill ranks to even be used.
If the 7 INT character has a rank in knowledge Geography, and the 18 Int guy doesn't... The 7 int will beat the 18 guy EVERYtime it is a DC 10+... just on the basis of 'he gets to roll.'
It all comes down to my opinion of there not really being any RAW INT checks, but the INT dictates how many and how high your skills are.
Nice point.
How it can also go, and I've seen this, is the wizard has every knowledge skill and they keep failing them with terrible rolling. The melee guys have maybe 2 knowledge skills (or 1 profession, 1 knowledge), and they outperform the wizard with a rather nice roll.
Many lols were had that day.
Do you think debating the semantics is truly important, or that it will change the spirit or meaning of my statement?No offence meant. I wouldn't want anyone reading this thread to be accidentally led astray on a rules question by one of our posts. It wasn't a comment on the spirit of your post. : )
No offense taken. It just feels like too much time is spent on nitpickyness and conversation gets lost on the details instead of actually discussing ideas.
|
|
No offense taken. It just feels like too much time is spent on nitpickyness and conversation gets lost on the details instead of actually discussing ideas.Do you think debating the semantics is truly important, or that it will change the spirit or meaning of my statement?No offence meant. I wouldn't want anyone reading this thread to be accidentally led astray on a rules question by one of our posts. It wasn't a comment on the spirit of your post. : )
In that spirit, after reading Gygax's thoughts on the Charisma ability (bearing in mind that it was Gygax who invented it!), do you think it's okay to have a character concept whose physical beauty doesn't match his personal magnetism?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In that spirit, after reading Gygax's thoughts on the Charisma ability (bearing in mind that it was Gygax who invented it!), do you think it's okay to have a character concept whose physical beauty doesn't match his personal magnetism?No offense taken. It just feels like too much time is spent on nitpickyness and conversation gets lost on the details instead of actually discussing ideas.Do you think debating the semantics is truly important, or that it will change the spirit or meaning of my statement?No offence meant. I wouldn't want anyone reading this thread to be accidentally led astray on a rules question by one of our posts. It wasn't a comment on the spirit of your post. : )
I think physical beauty is too varied to really rank despite common opinion. Different people like different things...
Personally, I think Daniel Craig looks like five miles of bad road... but I know some gals who swoon whenever he's mentioned.
So yeah, going back to Hitler or Clint Eastwood or a lot of those types, there are a ton of people who aren't 'perty' but can get your attention.
The more I think about it, the more I think we should just get rid of the idea of 'physical beauty' as a numerical thing. You want to be hot... be hot. You want to have battle scars.. have scars. It has no bearing on your diplomacy or bluff. Charisma should just be seperate from looks.
In that spirit, after reading Gygax's thoughts on the Charisma ability (bearing in mind that it was Gygax who invented it!), do you think it's okay to have a character concept whose physical beauty doesn't match his personal magnetism?No offense taken. It just feels like too much time is spent on nitpickyness and conversation gets lost on the details instead of actually discussing ideas.Do you think debating the semantics is truly important, or that it will change the spirit or meaning of my statement?No offence meant. I wouldn't want anyone reading this thread to be accidentally led astray on a rules question by one of our posts. It wasn't a comment on the spirit of your post. : )
Yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi everyone.
Meet Johnny Bravo
Ladies man extraordinaire. In all likelihood, also a 7 Charisma.
He believes he is the strongest man in the world. He often fails to back this statement up.
We all know people who claim to be smarter, better looking, etc then they really are.
The problem is that not everything in d&d is reduced to a skill roll. Some groups assume certain things can be done by normal people. We will call these DC 10 ability checks and assume that everyone "takes 10". Maybe the door to the inn was built poorly and sticks a little bit. Maybe your Strength 6 wizard has trouble opening the door and is laughed at by any witnesses/potential romantic interests. (Open/Close is your friend). I think any time a character plays a stat below 10, they are going to notice some mundane things in normal life that most people don't have trouble with. Maybe maneuvering through a crowded bar is a DC 10 dexterity check. Nobody really has trouble because nobody needs roll as taking 10 is just what is natural. Not so when someone has, say, an 8 dexterity. Maybe he stumbles and bumps into a drunk and when he tries to make a diplomacy check with his 6 cha, he fails and starts a bar fight.
If you were playing such a character would you really be annoyed at the GM when he incorporated such things?
If you are going to play a character with a low stat, expect the GM to start being strict on what he enforces via ability and skill checks more often. Maybe telling a group of NPCs to "go here and flank here" etc... is no longer something you just "do" but instead a profession soldier check of DC10. Something nobody had a problem with in a normal game where everyone had an int of 10 or higher. In comes a 6 int fighter who wants to give tactics advice to NPCs, the GM calls for a roll, and is told that he is double punishing the 6 int character. Not so.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think for one moment that mundane tasks such as you describe are all automatically DC 10.
I think that this is a totally arbitrary DC, chosen specifically so that those with a stat of 9 or less cannot 'take 10' to pass it; essentially an arbitrary punishment for having a low stat, beyond those mandated in the game itself.
Not every sticky door is DC 10. Not every crowd requires DC 10 to navigate. Thinking about flanking isn't DC 10. Some of these things should have variable DCs (some DC 5, some DC 15, for example) and some should not require a check at all (like a fighter thinking about flanking).
|
|
In that spirit, after reading Gygax's thoughts on the Charisma ability (bearing in mind that it was Gygax who invented it!), do you think it's okay to have a character concept whose physical beauty doesn't match his personal magnetism?Yes.
In that case, you think that an ugly but otherwise charismatic PC can have a score of 18, AND that a good-looking but otherwise un-charismatic PC can have a score of 7.
Right?
In that case, you think that an ugly but otherwise charismatic PC can have a score of 18, AND that a good-looking but otherwise un-charismatic PC can have a score of 7.
Right?
To each their own, but if the "super-hot" gal has a 5 Charisma, then in any game I GM, she just thinks she is super hot, when in reality the vast majority of NPCs are going to think she's ugly.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To each their own, but if the "super-hot" gal has a 5 Charisma, then in any game I GM, she just thinks she is super hot, when in reality the vast majority of NPCs are going to think she's ugly.In that case, you think that an ugly but otherwise charismatic PC can have a score of 18, AND that a good-looking but otherwise un-charismatic PC can have a score of 7.
Right?
IRL I know plenty of gorgeous women who I think are shallow, manipulative and Un-likeable. Doesn't stop them being beautiful.
I glad that I know plenty more who are gorgeous AND lovely!
|
|
What @TiaxTheMighty was getting at was that a below average ability score will probably show itself in everyday life at some point. An 8 or 9 probably wouldnt show very readily but an observent person could see it. 7 or less would 'probably' be more noticeable.
Take two acrobats doing the same maneuvers, the below average dex person would 'probably' look less graceful then the average or better dex.
Of course mental ability scores take interaction with the person or observing an interaction to be able to be noticed. Certin 'social' skill can mask low cha/wis scores to some extent.
At least thats how see see it.
Of course mental ability scores take interaction with the person or observing an interaction to be able to be noticed. Certin 'social' skill can mask low cha/wis scores to some extent.
Which becomes a problem if you don't actually interact socially with the person who has a fake 18 Charisma but it is really a 10 Charisma. If they describe their character as Aphrodite-like, then when they're walking through a city they would logically be turning heads, gaining attention. As long as they don't speak to anyone, they're getting the benefits of a 18 Charisma.
It kind of reminds me of an old Birthright adventure I played in. In that campaign setting, you could get bloodline abilities that would do various things. One of them was Enhanced ability (+ to a stat). The increase to the stat could potentially put a character into very high territory with a lucky roll.
The way we played it, since the extra stat came from your bloodline, it wasn't physically manifest. I had a warrior character that looked like he was a Strength 14 or 15, but in reality he had a Strength of 19. That ended up being very useful for convincing NPCs that my character wasn't really a threat. In truth he was killing powerful opponents in 1 or 2 rounds.
If you take the angle that a character's stats don't have to be reflected in their character (or that you can flex them so that the unimportant or unRPable substats are really low while the obvious ones are really high), then they don't match the mechanics of the character, which means the campaign is less believable, less immersive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To each their own, but if the "super-hot" gal has a 5 Charisma, then in any game I GM, she just thinks she is super hot, when in reality the vast majority of NPCs are going to think she's ugly.In that case, you think that an ugly but otherwise charismatic PC can have a score of 18, AND that a good-looking but otherwise un-charismatic PC can have a score of 7.
Right?
Night hags (Cha 17) are the hotness!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cthulhu's tentacles are DEAD SEXY!!!
In that spirit, after reading Gygax's thoughts on the Charisma ability (bearing in mind that it was Gygax who invented it!), do you think it's okay to have a character concept whose physical beauty doesn't match his personal magnetism?Yes.In that case, you think that an ugly but otherwise charismatic PC can have a score of 18, AND that a good-looking but otherwise un-charismatic PC can have a score of 7.
Right?
I don't consider ability scores to be any more than very loose guidelines on how to RP. I think if you ran a scenario at GenCon 50 times, with nothing about RP on the character sheet except what is standard, you'd have a very wide array of methods and interpretations on the character.
I rely on different techniques/ideas to encourage roleplaying and help set the tone at the table. Ability scores are too open to interpretation to be useful in anything but the vaguest of senses.
Night hags (Cha 17) are the hotness!
To Night Pimps they probably are.
|
|
In that spirit, after reading Gygax's thoughts on the Charisma ability (bearing in mind that it was Gygax who invented it!), do you think it's okay to have a character concept whose physical beauty doesn't match his personal magnetism?Yes.In that case, you think that an ugly but otherwise charismatic PC can have a score of 18, AND that a good-looking but otherwise un-charismatic PC can have a score of 7.
Right?
I don't consider ability scores to be any more than very loose guidelines on how to RP. I think if you ran a scenario at GenCon 50 times, with nothing about RP on the character sheet except what is standard, you'd have a very wide array of methods and interpretations on the character.
I rely on different techniques/ideas to encourage roleplaying and help set the tone at the table. Ability scores are too open to interpretation to be useful in anything but the vaguest of senses.
We agree on this.
The upshot is that if a player comes to my table with a Cha 5 PC who he describes as 'good-looking' then I don't bat an eyelid. I don't think he's cheating. I just remember that his actual score governs rolls, and that the PC remains Un-likeable despite good looks.
It really isn't a problem.
In that spirit, after reading Gygax's thoughts on the Charisma ability (bearing in mind that it was Gygax who invented it!), do you think it's okay to have a character concept whose physical beauty doesn't match his personal magnetism?Yes.In that case, you think that an ugly but otherwise charismatic PC can have a score of 18, AND that a good-looking but otherwise un-charismatic PC can have a score of 7.
Right?
I don't consider ability scores to be any more than very loose guidelines on how to RP. I think if you ran a scenario at GenCon 50 times, with nothing about RP on the character sheet except what is standard, you'd have a very wide array of methods and interpretations on the character.
I rely on different techniques/ideas to encourage roleplaying and help set the tone at the table. Ability scores are too open to interpretation to be useful in anything but the vaguest of senses.
We agree on this.
The upshot is that if a player comes to my table with a Cha 5 PC who he describes as 'good-looking' then I don't bat an eyelid. I don't think he's cheating. I just remember that his actual score governs rolls, and that the PC remains Un-likeable despite good looks.
It really isn't a problem.
LOL
We've got the exact opposite at our Kingmaker game (Sorcerer, Oracle, and Paladin... it's kingmaker on the CW over there ;p)
I've joked around because the Sorcerer has a 21 Chr now and plays him very aloof and 'noble-ish'
I've commented before that he must be RIDICULOUSLY good looking.... because.. MAN is he a JERK :P
The upshot is that if a player comes to my table with a Cha 5 PC who he describes as 'good-looking' then I don't bat an eyelid. I don't think he's cheating. I just remember that his actual score governs rolls, and that the PC remains Un-likeable despite good looks.
I get that this is easier for you, and you don't want to feel like you're dictating to the players what their characters look/act like, but you really have to RP in a very loose manner for this to work.
Do you force players to engage in Diplomacy checks when they start talking to NPCs? If so, then isn't that wrong? Forcing players do something? If not, then if they choose to never utilize a Diplomacy or Intimidate check, and as such the Charisma-based rolls don't come into play, why exactly is the PC unlikable?
As I said before, to each their own, but being immersed in RP can be very difficult as it is with all of the real life distractions at the table. Adding another factor that can cause dissonance seems like something to be avoided.
|
|
Do you force players to engage in Diplomacy checks when they start talking to NPCs? If so, then isn't that wrong? Forcing players do something? If not, then if they choose to never utilize a Diplomacy or Intimidate check, and as such the Charisma-based rolls don't come into play, why exactly is the PC unlikable?
Whether or not I ask for a skill check is a judgement call. If I do, no problem.
If it's pure RP with no rolls, then I'm either taking the actual PC into account, or I'm just interacting with the player. If it's the latter, that would be pretty poor....but the reason it would be poor is not related to ability scores.
If it's the former, then I'm thinking about what the PC is like, and about what the NPC I'm playing is like.
If the PC has 7 Cha, and the player has made no mention of 'sub-stats' or anything, then I'd imagine that all the sub-stats were also 7.
If the Cha 7 PC was described as good-looking, then if the appearance sub-stat is high yet the Cha is 7, then the rest of the sub-stats are even lower than 7. Those NPCs who are shallow themselves might 'only be after one thing', and not care about the PC's feelings or thoughts, will take any words from them in the worst light, don't care if the PC likes them and cruelly insist that she 'gets them out for the lads'. Those NPCs that are more admirable won't be cruel, but neither will they want to be friends or spend time in conversation. 'Is that the time? I really have to be going...!'
If the PC has 7 Cha, and the player describes the PC's sub-stats as all being high (which is what you seem to fear), then the PC is deluded about their own charm and likeability. they may believe they are the gods' gift to humanity, but the NPCs will know them for the shallow, slimy pond-life that they are. Even beautiful people have body language; you sometimes don't even need to talk to them to think, 'Look at her! Who does she think she is, walking in here like she owns the place!' A Cha 18 person could do exactly the same thing and the thoughts of the observers will be positive where they were negative for the beautiful but shallow Cha 7 PC.
When the PC actually makes a request or a demand or tells a lie or whatever else I judge to require a skill check, I may give a bonus or penalty to the check based on the events leading up to the check, but no more than 2 points either way. The actual Cha of 7 is what will modify the roll.
So...no problem. I'm as immersed in the RP as anyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's the former, then I'm thinking about what the PC is like, and about what the NPC I'm playing is like.
If the PC has 7 Cha, and the player has made no mention of 'sub-stats' or anything, then I'd imagine that all the sub-stats were also 7.
So it sounds like what you're saying is that even when there is no roll present, you're envisioning what the character is good at, based on their stats plus any descriptions of sub-stats that they may have explained to you. Then you're ad-hocing a result based on your thoughts on the manner.
That sounds like a lot of work.
If the Cha 7 PC was described as good-looking, then if the appearance sub-stat is high yet the Cha is 7, then the rest of the sub-stats are even lower than 7. Those NPCs who are shallow themselves might 'only be after one thing', and not care about the PC's feelings or thoughts, will take any words from them in the worst light, don't care if the PC likes them and cruelly insist that she 'gets them out for the lads'. Those NPCs that are more admirable won't be cruel, but neither will they want to be friends or spend time in conversation. 'Is that the time? I really have to be going...!'
So do you ask your players to provide either a numerical or descriptive rationale for their sub-stats? Do the players realize that when they describe their Charisma 7 PC as beautiful, then you're deducing that the other sub-stats connected to Charisma are all atrocious?
If so, might as well just house-rule sub-stats into the game. Seems like it would be cleaner. If not, sounds like a lot of opportunity for confusion and miscommunication between GM and players.
|
|
If it's the former, then I'm thinking about what the PC is like, and about what the NPC I'm playing is like.
If the PC has 7 Cha, and the player has made no mention of 'sub-stats' or anything, then I'd imagine that all the sub-stats were also 7.
So it sounds like what you're saying is that even when there is no roll present, you're envisioning what the character is good at, based on their stats plus any descriptions of sub-stats that they may have explained to you. Then you're ad-hocing a result based on your thoughts on the manner.
That sounds like a lot of work.
If the Cha 7 PC was described as good-looking, then if the appearance sub-stat is high yet the Cha is 7, then the rest of the sub-stats are even lower than 7. Those NPCs who are shallow themselves might 'only be after one thing', and not care about the PC's feelings or thoughts, will take any words from them in the worst light, don't care if the PC likes them and cruelly insist that she 'gets them out for the lads'. Those NPCs that are more admirable won't be cruel, but neither will they want to be friends or spend time in conversation. 'Is that the time? I really have to be going...!'So do you ask your players to provide either a numerical or descriptive rationale for their sub-stats? Do the players realize that when they describe their Charisma 7 PC as beautiful, then you're deducing that the other sub-stats connected to Charisma are all atrocious?
If so, might as well just house-rule sub-stats into the game. Seems like it would be cleaner. If not, sounds like a lot of opportunity for confusion and miscommunication between GM and players.
This is no more work than any other campaign where the DM is interested in the role-play side:-
* What's your character like?
* What is it that makes your PC's Charisma equal 7?
You take the PC's description into account for role-play. If you don't then you can hardly claim that your game is all about the role-play!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As GM, I just go with the flow for a lot of it. If a player wants to talk things out with an NPC, I'm not too picky on how exactly they're RPing their character.
Of course, this assumes the PC isn't trying to achieve something. As soon as I get the impression they're trying to do something, there's going to be a roll. If a player wants to effect change on the game world, they're going to have to interact with the game world via mechanics, since those are the abstraction through which we measure impact and change.